10/16/2019

[Ed. Just highlighting a few comments the President made earlier today with regard to Syria, the Kurds, ISIS, and the future involvement of the US military therein. Because what is happening on the ground seems to be in as much of a state of flux as what is coming out of President Trump’s mouth, I’ll leave these tidbits here for you to unpack. ]

So I view the situation on the Turkish border with Syria to be, for the United States, strategically brilliant. Our soldiers are out of there. Our soldiers are totally safe. They’ve got to work it out. Maybe they can do it without fighting. Syria is protecting the Kurds. That’s good.

And just ten days after the White House announced we would withdraw from Northern Syria and essentially abandon our Kurd allies ahead of a Turkish military offensive, President Trump felt compelled to say this:

Syria and Turkey may fight. Syria is friendly with the Kurds. The Kurds are very well protected; plus, they know how to fight. And, by the way, they’re no angels, but they were with us. They are no angels. But they are fighting.

Also, going a step further than last week’s tweet suggesting that ISIS prisoners had been released as a tactic to reconstitute US involvement, the President today made an actual claim, without providing evidence, that this had indeed, been done:

But you have a lot of countries over there that hate ISIS as much as we do; in some cases, probably more. So they can take care of ISIS. We have them captured. The United States captured them. Some were released just for effect — to make us look a little bit like, “Oh, gee, we’ve got to get right back in there.”

Interestingly, 7,000 miles came up several times today. First, during the Q&A at the White House, and later at a volatile meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders about Syria:

Q: You don’t think the country’s worried about ISIS? You mentioned earlier you think some of the countries might hate ISIS more than the United States.

TRUMP: Absolutely. Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does. Iran hates ISIS. I mean, we’re fighting a war for Russia, we’re fighting a war for Iran? You look at Syria. Syria hates ISIS. We’re over there killing ISIS. Don’t forget, we’re 7,000 miles — so we’re killing ISIS, we’re 7,000 miles away. Russia is much closer. Iran is right there, Turkey is right there. They all hate ISIS. Turkey a little bit less so, but the others very much. Russia had a plane blown up by ISIS. Russia wants nothing to do with ISIS. Russia’s tough. They can kill ISIS just as well and they happen to be in their neighborhood.

All I’m saying is this, I’m not going to lose potentially thousands and tens of thousands of American soldiers fighting a war between Turkey and Syria. Syria’s not our friend. Assad is not our friend. That’s the way it goes.

NEW DETAIL per three sources: Trump said several times in mtg he wasn't concerned about terrorists 7,000 miles away. After Pelosi & Hoyer left, @RepLizCheney spoke up to remind Trump that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 "came from 7,000 miles away" themselves. https://t.co/FySaRMsSzc

But, really, the plan is to get out of endless wars, to bring our soldiers back home, to not be policing agents all over the world.

You read where we’re sending some troops to Saudi Arabia. That’s true. Because we want to help Saudi Arabia. They have been a very good ally. They’ve agreed to pay for the cost of those troops. They’ve agreed to pay fully for the cost of everything we’re doing over there.

If the goal is murder, mayhem, misery, and chaos in Syria, then yes, it is strategically brilliant. What do we care if America is now a nation of vile cowards and betrayers? The Nationals won the National League pennant and isn’t that what really matters?

The whole shtick about bringing our soldiers home while deploying 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia like hired guns is mind-boggling.

Do you know why we’re sending 1,800 “Troops’ to Saudi Arabia? Do you know what type of “Troops” they actually are, or what their mission is? Please instruct us. Until you know that, your assumption they are equivalent to the “Troops” in Syria is incorrect.

Oh wait, I forgot. You don’t like the Saudi’s so we shouldn’t be sending troops there. So what if they aren’t needed. We should keep troops in Syria though. Because they’re helping the kurds. Wait, they’re not doing that anymore. So why are they there?

Here’s another brilliant observation from our wise, all-knowing president, as our abandoned allies are slaughtered: “There’s a lot of sand, they have a lot of sand to play with.”

And there’s that doozy of a letter he sent to Erdogan, which helps explain why he knew that Trump could be rolled.

Etc., etc.

The president is mentally unstable and becoming ever more out of touch with reality — and yet the True Believers still insist that whatever he does is smart and correct, and that those who disagree are deranged. It’s quite bizarre.

Yeah, if want to wrench individual sentences out of context and make anyone look bad. The MSM and Liberals/Democrats have been doing it to Trump for 3.5 years. So far, no one cares. But they love doing it. Sads.

Do you know what type of “Troops” they actually are, or what their mission is?

Let me Google that for you!

The Pentagon will deploy about 1,500 extra troops to Saudi Arabia in answer to requests by the leading US military commander in the Middle East and, in part, because the US Navy is unable to send a relief aircraft carrier to deter potential Iranian aggression, multiple US officials tell CNN.
[…]
The Pentagon said Friday that the deployment to Saudi Arabia will include two fighter squadrons, one air expeditionary wing, two Patriot batteries and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

Are these troops lives worth less than ones Trump is withdrawing from Syria? Or does the fact that Saudi Arabia is (allegedly – Trump could well be lying) paying for the deployment make it OK to put them in harm’s way?

Lemme fix that scorecard for you, since you’re not a “NeverTrumper”.
Russia/Saudi Arabia/Turkey = bad guys –> Yes! Why are they not bad guys?
Ukraine/Kurds/Hong KOng = good guys –> Yes? Why are they not good guys?
Iran/China = sometimes good, sometimes bad. –> The Iranian regime is all bad, the Chinese regime is mostly bad.
Cuba = we don’t care about it. –> Nope, they’re a communist dictatorship, therefore bad.
Tibet = same. –> Nope, but they’ve been conquered and subjugated by an authoritarian dictator. We can’t do much about it except call it out.
Crimea = very important. –> Yes, see Tibet. Oh, and it’s not Crimea, it’s the Crimean region of Ukraine.

It’s interesting that Trump implied to reporters today that because the US doesn’t border Turkey, there’s no reason to be involved, but ignores that the US also doesn’t border Saudi Arabia, and yet we are sending US troops there:

So, if Russia wants to get involved with the — with Syria, that’s really up to them. They have a problem with Turkey, they have a problem at a border. It’s not our border. We shouldn’t be losing lives over it.

So, if Russia wants to get involved with the — with Syria, that’s really up to them. They have a problem with Turkey, they have a problem at a border. It’s not our border. We shouldn’t be losing lives over it.

So the Russians are welcome to go wherever they like, as long as the stay out of Mexico and Canada, I guess…

It appears Trump has a double-standard for allies depending on whether the ally in question has money. Hmm, what other organization has recently manifested a double-standard towards a moneyed foreign country? Hint: It involves a round leather ball.

A few wars past and 36 years ago next week, back in the Reagan days, 241 “peacekeeping” Marines were blown up in Beruit.

Everybody in the Middle East is the ‘enemy.’ America has no ‘friends’ there; no “allies” – only interests; chiefly business interests. They’ll all turn on a dime– especially when the dimes and dollars stop coming their way. We sell them all arms to fight– then they hustle us to pay them not to fight. The tribes and carpet bazaar clans have been scoring that scam on empires and assorted nations that come and go there for centuries; they’ve been squabbling over the rocks and sand for 2,000 years. These days their chief export is terror; their only manufactured product: rubble. And the corporate armies of the past 100 years or so are mainly interested only in what’s under it: oil. If the place had noting but feldspar and granite beneath it, America wouldn’t give a damn– or waste a dollar or life over the place. And they know it. They’ll start scamming and slaughtering Russians soon enough.

Cats would make for better “allies” — as long as you keep feeding them.

As I said, Trump was trying to be cosistent with a policy (that was not his idea, but which he thought he had committed himsekf to) that U.S. troops should only be used in direct defense of United States – and it doesn’t work, any more than Abraham Lincoln’s attemot to save the Union and only do as much against slavery as would help presrve the Union. That didn’t work either.

How many of Trump’s own appointees have come out and offered serious criticism of him now? I lost count a while back but I am certain it’s a record. But that does’t bother you, I suppose, if your desire is to delude yourself into believing that all of this mayhem is by design.

31. My idea of what the US could do to help the Kurds. Javelins. Javelin missiles. The Turks have tanks and armor. They need panzerfausts to defeat those. Without armor the Turks cannot move in infantry.

Why give them to the Kurds? Why not US Troops firing on on NATO allies direct? Thats
what all the never Trumpers want. The United States at war with a NATO member nation.

Thats what all the never Trumpers want. The United States at war with a NATO member nation.

You don’t speak for me, iowan, and I never did vote for Trump and never will. This really spotlights why Trump’s decision is so terrible. Had we stayed, then Turkey would risked being a NATO attacking another NATO member, but that ended when Trump cut and ran. The US is not going to initiate an attack against the Turks, because we respect the alliance (or at least Trump should), which means Erdogan will do pretty much whatever he wants in northern Syria.

31. My idea of what the US could do to help the Kurds. Javelins. Javelin missiles. The Turks have tanks and armor. They need panzerfausts to defeat those. Without armor the Turks cannot move in infantry.

Why give them to the Kurds? Why not US Troops firing on on NATO allies direct? Thats
what all the never Trumpers want. The United States at war with a NATO member nation.

iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/17/2019 @ 5:35 am

The previous status quo was bad.
A week ago Trump took unilateral action and made it worse.

Now there are 2 conversations going. One is about what a massive screw up this was. The other is about what do we do now.

My saying that Trump made a bad situation worse isn’t the same thing as saying I want to bomb a NATO ally. It’s dishonest to say that it is.

the west was al ready to do in Syria, what they did in Libya, which ended in Benghazi, but also Manchester and westminister if I remember correctly, drop the bombs then walk away, of course the Russian would want to come to the aid of their client state since 1971, at least,

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.